With a secondary private insurance market, you continue to have the capitalist model and freedom of choice. That's the core of the issue: how do you ration a fundamentally limited resource. I disagree with your belief that our health care market is based on how much someone has contributed. Your hypothetical example simplifies the issue to an absurdity. In your example: the 31 year old drug addict could be the son of a successful personal injury lawyer so he's got his cure. The 81 year old scientist could have been dumped by the insurance company because he's old and thus a burden on their profit margins.
Fundamentally, it's a relatively simple issue..., Basic economics tells us that markets are just not good at dealing with public goods. This isn't a controversial conclusion by any means and pretty much everyone seems to agree. If your society believes that public health is a public good, the government needs to be involved and provide basic healthcare to all citizens (otherwise, you end up having issues with deciding who is deserving and who isn't). If your society believes otherwise, it doesn't need to provide basic healthcare. Obviously, neither conclusion precludes the existence of a completely independent private healthcare market. As a matter of fact (stated without judgement), an overwhelming majority of developed countries in the world have concluded that public health is important and thus treat it as a public good. That said, Americans, through the use of their democratic institutions, are free to make their choice and it should be respected.
The problem with "democratic institutions" begins when they serve to impose something over a relatively smaller group by a relatively larger group and give legitimacy to that. If one group is able to "legally rob" the other, you can be damn sure that it will. Hugo Chavez got to power and even converted his mandate to lifelong through democratic means. Does that make this right? We are all seeing the results of this. As Milton Friedman always said: If 51% of the population votes to shoot and kill the other 49%, does that make it right to do it? Of course not. That's why private and free markets are the way to go. Because even though they are not perfect, they are the most effective. It is an ilusion to think that you're not choosing "who gets what", if government takes over health services. Government will decide who gets what and it is no secret how inefficient governement is at allocating resources. There is no free lunch. Things will have to be paid, one way or the other.
While the sentiment you express is admirable, the logic of your argument is a double-edged sword. As an extreme example, I can imagine a paedophile would argue that the laws imposed by a larger majority which prevent them from preying on minors are "wrong". They would feel that the majority is "legally robbing" them of their rights. And yet, we do have laws which curb certain freedoms that certain minorities want to enjoy. To invert Milton Friedman's argument: if 51% of the population votes to stop the other 49% from owning slaves, does that make it wrong to do it? And yes, private and "free" markets, while not perfect, are, on balance, the most effective at allocating certain resources. However, as I've mentioned previously, it's also a relatively well-known fact that there are certain things that markets don't do so well. And yes, things have to be paid, one way or another. Some civilized societies have agreed that certain things are best paid by some sort of a tax. Healthcare could be one such thing, but in a democracy, that's a decision for the people.
You´re confunsing what government should be doing and what it shouldn't. A Rule of Law is the basis in which a free society should operate. This dictates the rules of the game. A pedophile that actually commits a crime should be judged for his actions and it is a funtion of government to do this. Slavery is something that goes against a free society and is something that should and is very clear in the same Rule of Law that it isn't something that should even be put to vote. The same thing goes to freedom of speech. This subjects can't be even put to vote, because they go against the very foundation of a free society. These should be the only functions of government, which are indeed important and that make government a necessary evil, because markets can't efficiently deal with these issues. However, production and services(such as health service) can and are optimaly provided in a free market system, which makes a mistake to put government to handle these items.
Well, don't you think that rule of law is actually just another service provided by the government? The relevant parts of the three branches of the US government (such as Congress, the courts, the police and other law enforcement agencies) are paid for by the taxpayer, so that every citizen can enjoy the various law services society has to offer them. In your judgement, public health is an entirely different type of service than public order and rule of law. I have no problem with that, but I think it's important to realize that the line you have drawn is an arbitrary one. As I keep saying, if your view is shared by the majority, that needs to be respected.
The line is very simple, as I wrote in other words in the previous post: that which the free markets can regulate through forces of supply and demand, should be left for the the free market to regulate. The very few areas which cannot be regulated through forces of supply and demand, which are basically national defense(armed forces, against foreign enemies), police(defense of the citizens from other citizens) and reinforcement of the rule of law and contracts signed voluntarily between individuals and/or private companies(meaning the justice system) should be handled by government.
Yes, and I see the point you're making. However, let me again suggest to you that the line you have drawn in the above post is arbitrary. For instance, Friedrich Hayek, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, who formulated a lot of the intellectual case against "big government", argued that healthcare is one the basic services the government should provide ("Constitution of Liberty", Chapters 19 and 20). There are many more such examples, if you look. As I keep saying, I respect the right of any society to draw arbitrary lines, if it's the decision of a majority.
In the preface of his book "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek himself admits that in the first editions of his books, he had indeed such ideas, but he also states that as the time passed, he realized that he should've been yet more "libertarian"(even though he clearly says that he chose to leave The Road of Serfdom as it was, but he clearly says that that was an outdated view). The same goes for Milton Friedman, which in the beginning defended the idea that government could have a role in the most basic education and he later on changes that saying that evidence showed that even in the most basic education, government has no role. And as I too keep saying, if you simply state that what a majority decides should be accepted, you're going to end up with Hugo Chavez. The point is that matters that can be regulated by free market´s supply and demand, which government should not be involved, should NOT be put to vote. There's no need to. The market itself does the job. The only things that require a majority to impose something are the things that can't be regulated by the market. For example, which should be the punishment for murder? Life in prision? Death? 30 years? 50? Each person will have an opinion on this, but there's no way to let a "market" decide what will be applied. So this has to be decided by the majority.
Let me just say that "Constitution of Liberty" is not one of Hayek early works. It was written nearly 20 years after "The Road to Serfdom". Some of the points made are also reiterated in "Law, Legislation and Liberty", which was written even later. Other than that, it doesn't appear that we're likely to agree on this, so I'll let a better man like Hayek speak on my behalf. Best of luck to you!